Iran is already sending in thousands of troops, but the fact is that the country is gone. The national entity that was called 'Syria' no longer exists on the ground, in much the same manner that 'Iraq' no longer exists. While the split of Iraq is far clearer (Shiite/Iran influenced territory to the East, Kurdish influenced territory to the North, and to the West the eastern-flank of ISIS held territory), for Syria it is more convoluted as there are a number of groups fighting for ground.
However, the clear winner is ISIS, and my opinion of what will happen is that Assad and his forces will retreat to the Mediterranean coast of Syria to the extreme Wast of the country, and they will basically make a last stand there. That is tribal Alawite territory, it is mountainous, and with the sea at their back they have no choice but to fight or die. It will be difficult for ISIS to dislodge them from there, and it is possible that an Alawite land-hold could be established. It is also likely that Iranian support will focus on that last bastion (as well as Damascus, of course).
I know there are some who are happy about the fall of Syria as a prime enemy of Israel (a country I fully support) has been taken off the board, but in my opinion that would be a highly (highly) erroneous view of things. All that has happened is that a government that could have been negotiated with and/or bombed has been replaced with an amorphous entity that cannot be negotiated with and is harder to bomb.
Another way of thinking about this is as follows: after 9/11 the West rightly knew it was imperative to destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban because this was a group that was running an entire country that was being used as a terrorist base the size of a nation, and Al Qaeda for obvious reasons.
Well, in ISIS you have an organization that has done in less than two years something that Osama thought impossible - conquering and holding vast geography -, are spreading and integrating with other jihadi groups from West Africa to South East Asia, and once they have finished their land grab in the 'easy' countries (by 'easy' I mean the countries that were gift-wrapped for them: Iraq, Libya and Syria), they will turn their attention to the 'next set' (read: Jordan, Saudi Arabia), and of course the West.
But to answer your original question, Syria as a country is gone. You will have:
- a small Alawite/Shia splinter to the extreme West (decades ago there was a push for an Alawite state before the Alawites started ruling Syria);
- A Kurdish splinter to the extreme north (and I see the Kurds in Iraq and Syria someday bringing trouble to Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish population);
- a small piece of land controlled by the rebels (non-ISIS affiliated, with some of these rebels being Al-Nusra ...which is the local name that Al Qaeda in Syria is using);
- and finally over half the country controlled by ISIS.
Let me close by saying this - the next time a country considers 'regime change,' whether it is removing Saddam, Qaddafi or Assad, it is imperative to ascertain that there is a viable replacement available to fill the vacuum. If there is none, then the ONLY course of action is the Gulf War One (Senior Bush/Colin Powell) doctrine of smiting the heck out of the enemy, but leaving him and his systems in place.
Thanks. that was really informative. and scary. I wonder what the real numbers for ISIS are. 40000 taking over parts of three countries? seems so crazy. and didn’t a US general or somebody say 10000 have been killed?
I cant believe Syria is gone. Iraq in tatters. Jordan and Saudi Arabia next? And 18 million Kurds in Turkey that now have representation in the govt. but will it be enough for them or will they want their own country? just wow.
So when Assad falls who then will run Syria? Turkey going to step in the gap before the animals take over?
ISIS is like Baron Frankenstein’s monster. They will get out of the lab. Both the US and Israelis are going to rue this.